Viva La Manosphere highlighted a Barbarossaa post today with a new (to me) man up video featuring Pastor Mark Driscoll and Bill Bennett. These guys are the all stars of the man up brigade, so it was impressive to see both of them in the same video. Those peter pan manboys don’t stand a chance!

The video itself is some of the best advertising I’ve ever seen. It is perfectly tuned to appeal to the key target audience, which is quite obviously Christian women. At the same time it is designed to appeal to the secondary audience, Christian men. Christian men can watch the video and think:

Finally, someone is fighting the feminism in the church and teaching men to reclaim their position as head of the household! I’ll go ask my wife if she will allow me to attend.

Following the lead of Courageous, the video features a thoroughly broken husband being harangued by his ballbusting wife. For a moment he weakly pushes back, but then she threatens to move out and he submits to her authority. Those who support traditional marriage are no doubt encouraged by this exchange and the larger message of the video, assuming this video series is secretly about returning to the biblical instruction on headship and submission. If their wife gives the ok, they can’t wait to attend the sessions!

But as I mentioned above the true target audience of this video is obviously the head of modern Christian households, the wives. The video is perfectly tuned to create a grass roots facebook/email marketing campaign by Christian wives:

Finally someone is willing to fix our broken men! Maybe these folks can get our man-children to step up and lead us the way we tell them to.

This works because those who believe in traditional marriage will spot the out of control harridan wife and assume the video is a rebuke of women like this, while women like this can identify with the harridan wife constantly telling her pathetic husband to man up. The whole video is tuned this way, with vague references to “divorce” changing society, without ever saying anything which would make a rebellious Christian wife uncomfortable. You won’t know what is actually included in the series until your church plunks down the $150 and the wives send their husbands and sons in to be fixed. My money says the rebellious wives won’t be disappointed.

No one ever went broke pandering to feminist Christian wives, and this is the whole problem. While the video is telling men they need to step up and reclaim their position in the family, the message to modern Christian wives is anything but submission. Many of the men whose wives send them to the Stepping Up™ video series likely were dragged to a similar type of video series titled The Art of Marriage™. If you are a married Christian man in North America, odds are your wife was emailed by another Christian woman telling her about how great the program is (mine was). SunshineMary mentioned having viewed that series in a comment a while back:

(my husband and I recently went through this study at our church). It’s the same old same old. Lots of false information about what generates attraction, lots of “servant” leadership (i.e. supplication by husbands) and mutual submission.

What the creators of the Stepping Up™ advertisement above are ignoring is that feminist rebellion is rampant in nearly all modern churches. This rebellion is being catered to by Christian movies and a whole slew of Christian publications, marriage retreats, books, etc. It is so bad that biblical headship is now framed as abuse. We don’t need more man up rants, we need to man up and confront the rebellion. But since Christian men have been beaten down by pastors and other religious leaders pandering to the rebellion of Christian wives, telling men to man up is easy, while calling on Christian wives to submit is terrifying. Christian husbands won’t argue if you tell them they need to “step up”, they will agree and then tell you about how their wife is light years closer to God than they are. This is a serious pathology, but no one in a position of leadership wants to truly confront it. There is not only a sense of terror at offending the feminist rebellion, but a deep sense of shame that the Bible is so profoundly unfeminist.

Pastor Voddie Baucham Jr. gave an excellent sermon on the topic of submission on a radio program by FamilyLife back in June of last year. The message is titled The Value of Submission, and you can download the mp3 or read the transcript. He does a masterful job of addressing the rebellion while softening the message enough to prevent an outright riot in the pews. Here is a short quote, but I highly recommend listening to or reading the entire thing:

But here’s what else I know—even if your husband led perfectly, you would rebel against it because that was the curse in the Garden. “Yes, well, what if my husband is not even being obedient to God?” Isn’t it great that there’s a Bible verse for that? First Peter, Chapter 3, “Likewise, wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word—” Yes, it’s in there!

By the way, when he says, “Likewise, wives,” do you ever wonder, “Like what?” If you go back to the previous chapter, and the previous paragraph, he’s talking about slaves who have evil masters and how a slave, with an evil master, should submit, even to the evil master. It’s after that that he says, “Likewise, wives.” I don’t write the mail; I just deliver it. [Laughter]

Pastor Baucham is a master, and very few other pastors could honestly navigate this issue without being thrown out of the room. What the Bible says is so radically different than how modern Christians believe that hearing the truth can be quite startling. Yet if we are Christians first, we need to bend to the Word, not the other way around. But very few Christian teachers are willing to take a bold stand for the Bible, especially when it comes to the topic of women and marriage. Telling men to “step up” is easy, a true crowd pleaser; telling women to submit is dangerous, not to mention bad for business.

After Baucham’s sermon completes the host of the show and president of FamilyLife Dennis Rainey expressed his thoughts on what Pastor Baucham just explained:

Dennis: I’ve got a feeling it’s probably pretty quiet in some cars and, maybe, on some headsets, listening to this broadcast.

Bob: Let me just say that we still have Part Two to come. That is where Voddie is going to talk to men about loving their wives as Christ loves the church. This message has some balance to it, but—pretty strong stuff.

Dennis: It is strong stuff. As I was sitting there listening to Voddie give that message, I thought, “You know, this would be a tough message for a woman, in this culture, to hear, if it was given by a woman.

Bob: Yes.

Dennis: But hearing it from a man—it is interesting. I think for some women—that makes it tough to hear. I would just say to the wife or the young lady who is listening to that and says, “I don’t like that!”—you know what? He didn’t write it. He does deliver the mail. He’s just trying to share with you what the Scriptures teach, in terms of how a marriage relationship between a husband and a wife—how they’re to complement each other and not compete with each other. There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.

Bob: [Laughing] You go, “I don’t like that part either!”

Dennis: As a man, absolutely! And yet, in this culture, Bob, I feel like we poisoned the stream about—I don’t know—four decades ago and really made it almost objectionable for a message like this to be preached by a pastor—by a man—to a mixed audience, at this point. I don’t want you to hear me apologizing that we did it—that’s not my point. I want to recognize that, in this culture, we understand that it does go against the grain of what a lot of women are taught. All I would say is, “If you can find a better way for a marriage to work, I’d like to see it.” This passage, here—along with the rest of Scripture—really points out how two imperfect people can go the distance and how they can glorify God in the process.

He doesn’t want you to hear him apologizing for airing Pastor Baucham’s sermon, but what else is he doing if not apologizing for what is in the Bible? He even says there is a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of [his] neck to stand up! When else would a leader of a Christian organization say something so outrageous, so shameful, except when it comes to pandering to the feminist rebellion?

And exactly who poisoned the well? Feminists? Could he mean women like Sheila Wray Gregoire? I doubt it, because Sheila and her husband are regular speakers at his FamilyLife weekend marriage conferences. Sheila describes on her blog how the women at the conferences get visibly uncomfortable when she talks about “what a woman can do to make marriage great”. She explains that this always happens, so she stops and tells the women:

I know you women are uncomfortable with me saying all these things that you should do. But let me reassure you that right now my husband has all of your husbands in another room, and he is blasting them and telling them what they need to do, too, in no uncertain terms. So don’t worry. Your husbands are hearing an important message. So get your minds off of them and let’s just spend this time thinking about what we as women can do to make the marriage great.

Does anyone doubt that these wives are the same target audience for the ad at the beginning of the post? What is amazing is Sheila isn’t preaching like Baucham on wives submitting to their husbands. Sheila is all over the map on the topic, but in her signature book she explains that biblical submission means giving your husband a list of housework to do so the wife feels pampered and the husband feels useful. Sheila isn’t fighting against the feminist rebellion; she has a master’s degree in women’s studies. Yet even Sheila’s words are too much for modern Christian wives to hear!

Do not enable childish behavior in your marriageHere’s my feeling: God does not want us to enable unChristlike behaviour. When Christ served, he often did very lowly things, like washing people’s feet. But it didn’t mean He himself was lowly. And when He served, He pointed people to God.

I believe that we can get into relationship patterns in marriage where our service to our husbands does not point them to God; it points them away from God. If our husbands are able to act however they please, and be completely selfish, immature, and border on controlling, then the marriage is not honouring God.

She warns her FamilyLife readers not to suggest that wives should submit to their husbands and win them over without a word (emphasis hers):

So please, ladies, I am truly imploring you today: don’t come up with the pat answers. Honestly, without leaving the marriage, what should she do (or can she do) to turn it into a more God-honouring relationship? Telling her to sit there and take it, or that she needs to submit, even if you word it nicer than that, is not going to help.

By staying away from “pat answers”, I can only assume she means avoiding the instruction Pastor Baucham referenced in 1 Peter 3.

FamilyLife president Dennis Rainey featured another teacher on the topic of Headship and Submission a few months before he featured Pastor Baucham’s message. Just like with the Baucham clip, you can listen to the mp3 or read the transcript. Not surprisingly, the woman he featured wandered around the issue for some time before closing with the abuse canard:

I’m sure there’s still questions in your minds, but let me just try and preempt the most common question so that I don’t get 50 or 500 of them, all saying the same thing. A woman would probably say—many of you women are probably saying in your minds, “Okay. I get what you’re saying, but my husband doesn’t. He thinks his authority is a blank check to get his way in every circumstance. He’s controlling, threatening (maybe even abusive). Am I supposed to submit to all of this?”

The answer is, “No!” Your submission to a husband who is sinning against God is to oppose him. Remember, you’re supposed to be helping, serving in your submission…

If he’s abusive, call the police—I mean, if necessary—but with the motive of trying to serve and save him—not punish, or dominate, or threaten him…

Unlike Baucham’s message, Dennis Rainey didn’t express any discomfort at hearing this message on submission. Instead of talking about how the Bible makes the hair on the back of his neck stand up, he invited listeners to sign up for one of FamilyLife’s marriage retreat weekends.

If you ask me, he should have taken the opportunity to invite his listeners to attend the video seminar on marriage FamilyLife created, called The Art of Marriage™. While he was at it, why not also invite his audience to read his new book or attend the seminars based on it; are you familiar with Stepping Up™? I hear it is just what we need to fix the problem with Christian manhood.

200 Responses to Brilliant advertising.

You don’t think there might be some truth in women telling their men to act straight? I mean, I understand a lot of women just use that as an excuse to henpeck, but on the other hand there are men who don’t really act like men. My whole life my father has basically had the personality of like a 5 year old, he constantly babbles nonsense and these stupid non-jokes and it gets insanely annoying and any American woman would have left him years ago (but my mother is from the same weird country where in their culture you’re basically not allowed to do that). I mean, it’s to the point that I’ve NEVER HAD A MALE ROLE MODEL, my god, I thought I wanted to join the military for a while, because I thought that was the only place with any sense or order, or just reasonableness. Though the thinking I needed to join the military thing is also related to my mother’s and older brother’s dysfunction as well.

In my experience, it is the mothers that enable immature behavior in their sons. The fathers have been stripped of their authority. Any time a father tries to insist on responsible behavior, their wives and their children will turn on them and tell him how mean and unloving he is. The man’s only possible response other than caving in is to tell the mother to “shut the **** up,” and to the son, “do what the **** I tell you to, or you’ll regret it,” but then THEY are called irresponsible, brutal and mean and face frivorce or the police showing up at their door with a TRO.

I will fully admit to being hopelessly cynical, but it’s getting to the point where every time someone says “good marriage” I reflexively visualize carrying around a grown woman on my back who screams at me half the time. Even trying to manage a “good woman” seems like a pain in the ass with the added benefit of the state holding a gun to your head.

I find the praise of Voddie Baucham in the OP interesting. My understanding is that Mark Driscoll and Voddie Baucham are on the same team; that they are quite similar to each other religiously. I think they both tend to be speakers at the Desiring God conferences. Baucham may have a reputation for being more “hard core” on the patriarchy message but it doesn’t make much sense to criticize Driscoll in one breath and praise Baucham in the next breath. Baucham probably does a lot of “man up” talk himself. Also it is a universal Christian message that husbands should submit to God.

Another thing; Mark Driscoll’s “man up” message is very popular among men. His Mars Hill Church is mostly made up of men. Young 20 something men love hearing Mark Driscoll yell at them telling them to “man up.” The “man up” message is one of the main reasons his church has been so successful and fast growing. Men want to be told to “man up” more than women want men to be told to “man up.” Manning up is a very male centric message.

Also, I am quite impressed Mark Driscoll is showing up in the same video as Bill Bennett. I consider Bill Bennett to be an old time social conservative and Mark Driscoll to be a cutting edge relatively radical church pastor. For Bill Bennett to implicitly support Mark Driscoll by appearing in the same video as him is a good sign that the Christian complementarian message that Driscoll specializes in is starting to get some mainstream acceptance.

Start acting like a man? How is that fat man who is watching TV who won’t tell that fat, ugly, purple towel-headed wife anything and probably hasn’t for the son’s entire life going to tell the son anything now. The son didn’t become that way spontaneously.

The ugly towelheaded monster (why do I think “Medusa” – with many snakes) said “I can move, there’s a nice trailer park…”. My immediate thought would be to say “I will call a cab if you will leave tonight”, if not either push or otherwise get her outside and lock all the doors.

(I’ve stayed celibate but often wondered. However if our Lord sent me a problem son – or daughter – lets say that whatever it took such would not be tolerated. Conversely in this instance I think the towelhead monster would get annoyed when I stayed out with my boy and we enjoyed the evening…).

I also now find irony in the name of “promisekeepers” for men, as in (with divorce), women thus are “promisebreakers”. A promise before men, the state, and God himself.

The message is “Man-up” but not so far up that you aren’t submissive to your wife.

Perhaps there should be a christian official man-strike. Women can either accept that they need to be submissive (not abused, not denigrated, but consider parent-child or teacher (sensei) student relationships, or where the master has been given responsibility), or they should convert and get thee to a nunnery.

This teaching sums up Pastor Mark Driscoll man bashing in marriage. Its one thing to do this only in front of the men to correct them but it is completely different to tear the men down in front of their wives like this. It is just wrong and sinful

I understand where you’re coming from. My family has had a dearth of strong men. I was raised by the TV. Fortunately for me, it happened to be turned to Clint Eastwood (dollars trilogy) movies when I was a boy so I had some frame of reference for what a man did.

It’s a complex emotion, feeling like your father is inadequate. It’s bitter, sad, and tinged with guilt. You have an eagerness to take the reigns and lead, but a guilt about it. He probably resists in passive-aggressive feminized ways.

It gets worse in that our society fails to reward men who are willing to use nerve and daring today. The betas make the money. Those of us who know the game are handicapped when it comes to playing the corporate game. We see the passive-aggressive slights slung by our female and beta coworkers. Instead of supplicating and wracking up the dough, we focus on living rather than becoming slaves. Money means little to the enlightened man. Where the beta says “80 hour weeks with no OT pay? Sure!” we say “I’m fishing. I’m busy.” I’m not here to serve my boss if she bites off more than she can chew.

But it stings. We’re being emasculated by the effeminate. The women and the weaker men who deny the reality of the genders have more money; more capital. What’s it like to owe fealty and loyalty to a weak man who won’t defend himself much less you? It’s torment of the mind and soul.

Hang in there. Hold in your mind what a strong man looks like. Strive to be one. Strive to find a woman who respects that and is willing to hold a Biblical view with it. Raise a generation of kids who know better.

“It gets worse… Instead of supplicating… chew”
WOOOWW, that part really speaks to me. I’ve felt that way for a while. It seems they want you to work extra time for little to no extra money, and I’m almost certain that promises of promotions will be bogus like 90% of the time.
So what, should I try to go into business myself? I’ve always been extremely intelligent with a STEM slant, and I frequently have ideas about different things that could work/sell, with varying degrees of feasability, and on top of that my family’s actually loaded and I have a trust fund (in theory – I don;t know if my parents would let me access it, since I didn’t finish CAAAWLLLLEGE, which is the only way anyone could possibly ever get ahaead in life *sarcasm*)

James McDonald @0:35 actually describes the present state of young women perhaps better than he does young men: “[Today’s society]…is creating people who are physically mature but emotionally, socially, even intellectually, they’re kind of just little [immature] still.”

Ditto the same guy at 8:45 talking about the problem of “entitlement” in today’s culture. I

Ironically, the woman @3:20 sounds like the enabler of exactly the kind of behavior she and other women are complaining about, according to these pastors. She’s not letting the son independently make adult decisions and face their adult consequences.

Also ironically, the father-son interaction during a physical game of pool (rather than, say, spending time being passively entertained by electronics) at 5:50 sounds like precisely one of the things that can help prevent the breakdown of the family mentioned at 7:31.

Yea, in spite of all the shaming language here, all these speakers fail to put their finger on the fundamental causes. They’re describing only symptoms; not the remedy.

@karma and edwin, I reached that point also in regards to the corporate world. I am tired of being in a situation where your far better than most around u and arent allowed to win. I work a small serving job, own a massage therapy business, and am using the money from both to flip houses and go fishing.

in bloated william bennet’s “book of man,” he leaves out the heart and soul of western civilization. a better name for bennet’s book would have been, “the book of fanboy manginas.”

jesus battled with the old, pedantic, dead-souled scribes in matthew 23, for which he was put to death. king leonidas had to consult with the corrupt, rotting, old counsel. in braveheart robert the bruce’s corrupt father had a face of rotting flesh. bill bennet reminds me of all of these, after a seven-day vegas-bender whence millions of fiat dollars, earned from an insincere, copy-and-paste “book of virtues” were gambled away.

ye shall know them by their fruits, it has been written, and bill bennet is the godfather of all the debt and debauchery–of all the divorce and destitution–of the incessant asscocking, buttcocking, and desouling of the culture and currency–of the false, fiat virtues he is paid fiat dollarz to espouse and promote as the hollow man blimps up on CNN.

bennet ignores the central, exalted message of genesis, and then ups the ante (as a gambling addict) by debauching and debasing the iliad faster than a neocon can debase a dollar to fund the perpetual warfare/welfare state. to top it all off, bennet ignores the most-decorated war veteran of all time in his “book of fanboy manginas.”

completely absent from bennet’s book is the awesome work of the jews in genesis:

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

in the classical, judeo-christian, chivalric context, a man would man up as he would be guaranteed a non-asscocked, chaste woman who be shamed out of not acting on and serving every gina tingle and butt tingle. instead of serving her butt and gina tingles, a woman would be expected to serve god, man, and family. for this, she would be honored in a civilized context, and she would realize her greater mythology as a mother, wife, and grandmother, instead of an asscocked, aging spinster with cats, working to expand the fed’s debt alongside her ass.

completely absent from bennet’s book is the divine RAGE of ACHILLES–the very center and circumference of homer’s iliad. the first word of the iliad is RAGE, as achilles is robbed of his prize and property by his commander; and so, his anger ignited, achilles quits the greek army in the first showdown between man and state. zeus sides with achilles, exalting the Natural Law that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson would someday exalt in their respective poetry–the very same Natural Law that Moses exalted when he rebelled against the corrupt Pharoah–the Natural Law that William Bennet detests in all his blundering ignorance regarding the monetary system which robs the common man and places future generations in debt to send today’s best and brightest to die on foreign shores in foreign wars. achilles rages as he reasons, “if i’m the one fighting, doing all the work, why are you–the king and his william bennett vegas cronies who never ‘buckle on armor’ getting all the rewards?” indeed, so might a marine wonder these days, if he’s taking all the risks for a few hundred dollars a month, why does bill bennet get to sit back home in vegas, gambling millions away while ballooning up like a big old blimp of debauched, foul hot air? so it is that bill bennet is working for the fiat bankers in all his blustering, bloating books, which serve far more to debauch and desecrate–to contort and confuse–than they do to exalt and enlighten. why isn’t bill bennet telling all the army-wives to “woman up” and stop with the buttcocking adultery, and serve their men with loyalty as Yahweh commands them to, and as Penelope does in Homer’s Odyssey? It’s because bennet is well-paid in fiat dollar to hate on homer, the bible, and the honorable serviceman like ron paul, while bennett himself never served in any branch of the armed forces. CNN rewards him for his supreme ignorance of the spirit on the Great Books and Classics, which he makes his arrogance.

finally, bill bennet, who “never buckled on armor nor suited up for battle” in the words of achilles, also ignores the most-decorated general of our own era–the noble Smedley Butler:

In that video, Mark Driscoll looks like a feminized version of the Pointy Haired Boss from Heck. I don’t think he’s got any business talking about effeminate men. All I see is cheesy AMOG shaming language.

Haven’t followed the American Christianity movement for years. Falwell and his ilk were my last images. But this Driscoll dude makes even those robber baron’s look good! This is what is called leadership in the American Christianity movement today?

I’d email you directly, dalrock, but I don’t find a “contact me” thingy; – so what’s the deal? Are you a practicing Christian yourself? Or do you just talk about what the Bible says about marriage because so many Christian people encourage marriage without the proper beliefs to back it up?

Would church be a good place for me or any young man to find a wife? The only downside for me is that I’m just not that religious. I have faith in things, like marriage and family and community, but not so much the supernatural stuff and Jesus stuff.

There’s a part of it where they say that men are becoming consumers or a bunch of different things (games, alcohol, etc), then they say sex. Given that sex takes two, who are they consuming it with? If they’re consuming, who’s producing? Maybe, just maybe, if the producers stopped producing, they’d stop consuming?

I’d be very curious about what how they’d answer without leaving the door open to follow up questions. The ones that tend to cast blame where it might belong.

I think Night Sky Radio has just changed to a new format. No one is giving me money for posting about economics, music, or stupid things drunk people do, so I’m hitching this wagon and doing Man Up talk radio 24/7. These guys can be my primary advertisers.

Pastor Mark Driscoll and Bill Bennett. These guys are the all stars of the man up brigade

Men submit to God and lead their wife. Submission can be a form of leadership if used correctly.

Men are the representation of God on this earth. While God did submit to humans at times (think Abraham pleading with God to spare Sodom if 10 righteous people are there…or Jesus) the reason was because God had the best interests in mind.

These fellows twist the whole submission thing into…everytime a man submits it is a good thing.

As far as becoming a man…the last person who has any clue about what manhood is…is a woman. A man must become a man on his own…with help from strong male role models. I’m getting to the point where I am done with adolescence and now am embarking on being a man. Not to serve the female imperitive…but for my own interests. Being a man and representing it is one of the greatest gifts on this planet.

To those who say this site and others like it are merely a hotbed of whining and complaining, I might respectfully point out this:

The point of posts like this is to illustrate that there is a problem in society; that the North American Church is not only part of the problem, but is also promoting and exacerbating that problem; and that videos like the highlighted one are presented as a solution but are instead making the problem worse.

What Dalrock is doing here is really just trying to get people to see that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Most people don’t even know that what’s illustrated in the video is the problem.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that video. You are paranoiacs interpreting everything through your own hobbyhorse of an issue, i.e., Men Are Getting A Rrrraw Deal!

But I suppose it contains not one, but two bogeymen, two Emmanuel Goldsteins for the two-minutes-hate. Too coincidental to pass up.

Yes, men are getting a raw deal. No, they do not focus on female culpability in that video. Perhaps that is because they had other fish to fry in that particular series. Perhaps that is because when men begin acting like men, women will follow their command. It is our fault, it is our responsibility, that is the message they are trying to get across. But you would rather defend the prerogative of middle-aged adolescent parasites because, like, feminism and stuff. And rather than listening to the content of (albeit histrionic and clownish) preachers like Mark Driscoll or even-keeled, perfectly rational culture warriors like Bill Bennett, you turn them into shorthand villains to further your monomania.

Let’s put it this way. Women need to be told they are fat, right? We have a weight-problem epidemic in our culture. Likewise, men need to be told they are pussies. They are escapists who jerk off to comic books and video games, and you want to valorize them. Both men and women need to step the fuck up. Talking about one does not preclude talking about the other. Especially since talking to the natural agents of civilization, men, has a better chance of transforming the culture than lecturing space-cadet, estrogen addled women. Men lead, women follow their lead. So which would be the more efficient group to “advertise” to?

It does not matter what the harridan thinks. She is not the engine of the culture. Men are.

This made me think of Susan Faludis book Stiffed, the Betrayal of the American Male, where she writes about the promise keepers. I read it over ten years ago so I don`t remember it so well but from what I recall she seemed to think the wives of the promise keeper guys that where supposed to lead their families where still very much in control of their men.

You do not take command of women by whining about how it’s all their fault we’re not the heads of households anymore, and look at this bible verse where it says this, and you reeealy reeealy shouldn’t divorce rape me are you because that wouldn’t be fair, and, and, and …

You take command of women by taking command of women. You tell them what is what. You physically move them from space to space. You issue directives. You explain how things are going to be.

Good news! That’s what they want too. You are listening to the “advertisements” and paying no attention to the subverbal cues. Their womyn-studies lips are saying no while their bodies are saying yes. That is why “man up” means something. Men can just assert their prerogatives and the rest will fall into place. If they wanted to. But you are adding excuse upon excuse upon excuse for their ongoing lethargy, for the thousand reasons why it never should have come to this, why households should come factory-built and ordered toward manliness, so that no regular beta schmoe doesn’t has to exert his prerogative at all. Because that would be discomfiting and conflicty and she might give you sass.

But what if she doesn’t listen? What if she goes her own way? What if she files for divorce, takes my kids? Or calls the police? What if she writes a mean blog post about how horrible a husband I am? These are phantoms, fantastical fears you would rather have direct you in the abstract hypothetical than confront them in the face and thereby demonstrate they are not real.

No, men are feminized cowards and you are using feminine methods (of speechifying and suasion) to reinforce their cowardice with high-minded pieties, massaging their complaint organ to encourage them to bitch like MRA’s on the rag.

Don’t finger the Gordian knot of women troubles, Alex. Cleave that rope in half and start pursuing the greatness for which you were born.

I understand where you’re coming from. My family has had a dearth of strong men. I was raised by the TV. Fortunately for me, it happened to be turned to Clint Eastwood (dollars trilogy) movies when I was a boy so I had some frame of reference for what a man did.

It’s a complex emotion, feeling like your father is inadequate. It’s bitter, sad, and tinged with guilt. You have an eagerness to take the reigns and lead, but a guilt about it. He probably resists in passive-aggressive feminized ways.

There is the manosphere in a nutshell. The boomer divorce generation began a cycle of fatherless upbringing among GenXers. These sites are the attempt to replace the paternal influence constituent to any boy’s growth into manhood. In their own way, this is what the “Stepping Up” series is trying to do, be the substitute stepdad to the child who never knew any men. But there is simply no replacement for a flesh-and-blood, present father putting his child to the test and demanding he achieve a certain standard.

The problem is, complaint-screeds against Driscoll and Bennett do nothing to alleviate the “dearth of strong men.” Dalrock is rather doing the opposite, encouraging manboys to take their toys and go home, rather than sacrifice for the good of the next generation, who can be trained how to avoid the mistakes of their fathers.

…telling women to submit is dangerous, not to mention bad for business.

The last three words of that quote are the key, because “business” is exactly what every one of today’s churchian franchises is. From the collection plate to the sales of books (ostensibly) about the Bible that, rather than the Word itself, are the focus of weekly “bible” studies; to pricy “seminars” the hucksterism of which puts Amway marketing programs to shame, it’s all about The Almighty Federal Reserve Dollar. And who drives the spending in today’s western economy, both within the chuchianosphere and the undisguised secular world as well? Why, the liberated and empowered woman, of course. Alienate her, and pastors and other professional churchians will soon find themselves having to go out and earn an honest day’s living.

Dalrock, do you have any posts taking apart JPII’s unbiblical, untraditional teachings on “mutual submission”?

There is nothing unbiblical or untraditional about The Theology of the Body. “Mutual submission” simply means Ephesians 5:21, a deference to women qua women “out of reverence for Christ,” for their unique feminine qualities. He is explaining a difficult lesson in a feminized idiom because, like it or not, that is the modern idiom.

Women are not slaves to their men, just as the church is not “slave” to Christ. “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15). There is a difference between salutary leadership and the mastery of animals, above which women are infinitely higher.

<blockquote.For Bill Bennett to implicitly support Mark Driscoll by appearing in the same video as him is a good sign that the Christian complementarian message that Driscoll specializes in is starting to get some mainstream acceptance.

The last thing this subterranean cult wants is “mainstream acceptance.” Any hint of it is regarded as suspicious or even blasphemous, a threat to the purity of their creed. They have run out of fresh material, and in their recycling, they are now expending most of their energy purging dissent and sussing out traitors and the insufficiently enthusiastic.

Dalrock is not the worst of them, by far. (See Roosh V, the paranoid king, and his latest capricious condemnations from the throne.) But it is a tendency in every one of these blogs to guard the precious arcana against the taint of mainstream association/corruption.

I think there is a season of adolescence but I think that even in that season of adolescence there should be expectations, there should be the execution of those expectations and there should be, um, discipline in place for the failure to meet those expectations.

He continues at 9:01:

There’s no real markers for a young man that says at this point in life this is the expectation on me and at this point, this is the the expectation on me. There’s no rights of passage, really, in our culture, there’s no uh there’s no high expectation on our young men that they do this or they become this and so I think really the role of the church is to step in and say, “Oh no, no, no. This is what’s expected and this is what we’re called to and to be real honest about, and this can be difficult.”

I wouldn’t have a problem with the church fulfilling this role for young men if they also fulfilled a similar role for young women, but it doesn’t.

Women need to be told they are fat, right? We have a weight-problem epidemic in our culture. Likewise, men need to be told they are pussies. They are escapists who jerk off to comic books and video games, and you want to valorize them. Both men and women need to step the fuck up. Talking about one does not preclude talking about the other.

I agree with you. The problem is, only men ever seem to get the talking-to in the church and in the MSM, as if they are the root of the problem. And of course, in this part of the web, women often get characterized as being the entire root of the problem. In reality, we aren’t doing very well by each other, and it’s past time for women to own their rather large role in creating this problem. I think if women do this, men would be more willing to examine their role in the problem and a more workable solution could be devised.

But women must be TAUGHT that that is their nature and that it is not a bad thing.

A man cannot force a woman to submit to him or to follow his lead.

She must do so of her own free will.

In order to do so of her own free will, she must learn how to do it and be taught that it is a good thing, a natural thing, the way of the world, the way of God, for her to submit to a good, benevolent, Godly man.

That’s why proper biblical instruction is needed for women as well as men.

But it’s not helpful for people like shrieking Driscoll and Bill “Vegas Gamblin’ Man” Bennett to harangue in men’s ears, using ballbuster fatass wives threatening to leave at the drop of a hat, to do it.

@ Deti
I agree with your comment at 9:38. That wife is a piece of work; threatening to leave her husband if he doesn’t obey her command…can someone remind me where in the Bible that is ever presented as an okay option for a woman to exercise?

I think the Christian man up rants wouldn’t be so bad if the end result was man up and do what God’s wants you to do, but the implication is man up and do what women want you to do. It would be interesting to see what would happen if all these young men “manned up” and became very successful but then refused to marry the women in the church because the women behaved like disrespectful, slutty shrews. Would the man up rants stop if the men were personally successful but refused to marry? One wonders.

I just read a non-Christian man up essay of sorts, which is far more effective because the author tells men to improve themselves in order to enhance their own journey and mission in life, not in order to serve women either by marrying them or by sleeping with them. You can read the essay here (crass language alert):

“I think the Christian man up rants wouldn’t be so bad if the end result was man up and do what God’s wants you to do, but the implication is man up and do what women want you to do.”

Yes. For churchians like the Family Life folks and for advice gurus like Sheila Gregoire, male headship and male leadership are A-OK — if, and only if, wife is being led the way she wants to be led; and is being led where she wants to go.

I just watched the video again, and I really think the manosphere owes the producers of this video a big thank you! Seriously, what single young man is going to watch the fat, ugly, shrewish wife with the pleasing baritone voice command her husband to go retrieve their son from the bar and think to himself, “Man I gotta get me one of those! I want to work my butt off for a burly, deep-voiced commanding officer! Where do I sign?”

If I were a single man watching that video, I’d be saying, “Pool hall, here I come!”

This video just created a bunch of new Christian MGTOWS – well done, Pastor Driscoll!

“For churchians like the Family Life folks and for advice gurus like Sheila Gregoire, male headship and male leadership are A-OK — if, and only if, wife is being led the way she wants to be led; and is being led where she wants to go.”

Does she even know how she wants to be led or where she wants to go?

Most women I’ve encountered don’t have a clue…because they have no idea how leadership works.

“But what if she doesn’t listen? What if she goes her own way? What if she files for divorce, takes my kids? Or calls the police? What if she writes a mean blog post about how horrible a husband I am? These are phantoms, fantastical fears you would rather have direct you in the abstract hypothetical than confront them in the face and thereby demonstrate they are not real.”

Not real? Abstract? Dude—stop freebasing. Now.

You are right many times—and always a great writer. But you’ve gone completely off the rails with this bit.

[Dalrock is] illustrating the problem; and showing that the North American Church and its misinterpretations of scripture and pandering to women is part of the problem.

He is “illustrating the problem” by interpreting every social phenomenon — including one explicitly directed toward men — as “pandering to women”? No. That’s called exaggerating a point past its usefulness. That’s called obsession, which actually damages the greater mission, missing the forest for the trees.

And, again, it is advocating the worst possible solution. Let’s say we shame the churches back into training women how to be women (in the face of a culture which encourages the opposite). How does that solve the lazy manboy problem? You are mistaking an obvious cause and effect for a baffling chicken-or-the-egg problem.

Manliness is a product of civilization. It does not occur naturally in the wild (except in a destructive form), it requires training and testing and rites and enforcement all through a boy’s childhood. Femininity is naturally occurring — women are physically smaller, weaker, frailer, less intelligent, passive, life-bearing — which produces an automatic deference to and preference for the strong. Feminism is the perverse artifice that mutilates a girl’s instincts in childhood.

Therefore, when men act like men, women will instinctively return to their natural state, uncorrupted by the amour propre (Rousseau) of feminist experimentation and disfigurement. Your type only wants to emphasize male victimhood, pass the buck, play the blame game. So rather than approaching both male and female inadequacies, you want to obsess over women’s failures rather than the opportunities our sex can take into its own hands.

Yes, it would be nice for womanly women to reclaim their prerogative of judgment over male actions. But if they did that, you all would just whine about how judgy they are, how unfair their expectations are, how awful the world is, how hard it is to be a man. Waah.

Instead, here in this culture of “non-judgmentalism” and no shame, you complain when your male peers and elders call you inadequate. They just don’t understand your predicament! What about the women! Huh? Are you talking to them too? Because if you’re not it would be like sooo unfairrrr!

Losers fixate on issues of “fairness,” like the feminists themselves. Men simply do, until a superior force stops them.

I’d rather women dress modestly than bicker about some seemingly arbitrary definition of submission. Instructing and equipping a woman to so dress is much more going with the grain of woman’s nature than against it…

The problem is, only men ever seem to get the talking-to in the church and in the MSM, as if they are the root of the problem.

There’s the rub. This is at the heart of our different approaches to the predicament.

If men are the “only” ones “to get the talking-to in the church,” that will eventually solve the problem. Our failure is indeed “the root of the problem.”

Why? Because we are the active agents. Women follow our cue. Men build circumstances, women adapt to circumstances.

Or, because of your female approach, maybe you think a mere “talking-to” will solve our advanced decadence in an instant? No, this disaster, this moral bankruptcy has to be unwound over the generations. Men have to relearn the manly value of taking responsibility just because. It is the only way fathers will be able to kickstart the cycle again, by teaching their sons how to be the men they never had the opportunity to be — which in itself is a manly pursuit!

No, today’s bitter MRA has a mind for vengeance rather than creation. They want the inequities and injustices redressed, and “when do they want it?” “NOW!” They don’t want to hear of sacrifice — Haven’t we sacrificed enough!!! It is the modern, self-centered nihilism underwriting this entire project, just as it underwrote feminism itself. In fact, it is feminism, but for dudes.

Granted, it seems this commentariat is entirely too bitter to receive the message anymore. Fine. Have your plaints and petty vengeances, and then die. The better ones will take a bite of the shit sandwich and “do what [they] can, with what [they] have, where [they] are.” They will have and raise children with less-than-perfect wives who refuse to apologize for the sins of their mothers, who have no idea what you’re talking about, who perhaps don’t respect men the way they should be — so that they might produce sons who will live to see the promised land, who will be the men they couldn’t be.

“Go your own way,” if you don’t like the test God has handed you. Fail more. No one is stopping you from squandering your legacy, from your walking away from a say in the future, from denying your son a seat at the table. No one is stopping the sterile, aborting, profeminist manchild “Pick Up Artists” either.

If men are the “only” ones “to get the talking-to in the church,” that will eventually solve the problem. Our failure is indeed “the root of the problem.”

Why? Because we are the active agents. Women follow our cue. Men build circumstances, women adapt to circumstances.

Sir, I understand what you are saying. However, I believe that you underestimate women’s active rebellion, which is not only a modern problem:

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that video. You are paranoiacs interpreting everything through your own hobbyhorse of an issue, i.e., Men Are Getting A Rrrraw Deal!

But I suppose it contains not one, but two bogeymen, two Emmanuel Goldsteins for the two-minutes-hate. Too coincidental to pass up.

You are missing the whole point. The youtube video you are talking about is an advertisement for a DVD series being sold to Christians. I even put it in the title for the slow crowd. My criticism is not of the advertisement, again, slow crowd please consult the title. The man who wrote the book/series, is the man who gets uncomfortable when Pastor Baucham (a man!) preaches the Word. Upon hearing a part of the Word which will offend feminists, he tells us that

There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.

He also says that someone poisoned the well 40 years ago, implying not that women are in feminist rebellion, but that men 40 years ago were so cruel and mean that women were forced to rebel. He also is very troubled that a man would preach the parts of the Word which offend feminists. He isn’t challenging the accuracy of Pastor Baucham’s preaching, he is just concerned that it might make women in feminist rebellion uncomfortable.

My point in the post is that foolish Christian men will look at the advertisement and say “Hey, great message!”, and then go ask their wives for permission to attend.

2 But as for you, teach what accords with sound[a] doctrine. 2 Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. 6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. 9 Bondservants[b] are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

15 Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

I may be wrong, but what I take from that passage is that both men and women need “a talking to”; we both need to be taught right from wrong. It seems that men need to be taught to be self-controlled (not weak) and women need to be taught to be respectful and submissive. So again, perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me that both women and men need to be told to woman/man up, but only men are currently being told this.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if all these young men “manned up” and became very successful but then refused to marry the women in the church because the women behaved like disrespectful, slutty shrews. Would the man up rants stop if the men were personally successful but refused to marry?

YES.

One wonders.

Stop wondering, and stop drawing conclusions from hypotheticals that will not ever become real. They are figments of the paranoid.

If men produced value — rather than envying the dependent parasite-status (called “independence”) of Jason Greenslate; rather than checking out or “going their own way” or vegetating in their fantasy world of shoot-em-ups and superheroes and “alpha” pick-up artistry — if men made themselves into prizes for their own sake, not according to female preference; then a market for feminine women, a man’s preference, would be created. They slut around today because why not? Their choice is between skank-seeking homunculi or self-pitying complainers against The Matriarchy. At least the former are fun to be around.

Bitter manboys with absolutely nothing to offer pen Woe-Is-Me internet screeds rather than exhorting the adolescent minded to grow the fuck up — because to be a man of value would be “beta” submissive, placating the carousel graduates who don’t deserve their Essence. Well, they avoided that tragedy! I’ll show them, I’ll be judgment-proof, they’ll have nothing to take from me because I won’t produce anything!

It’s really that simple. You don’t like sluts, sure it’s good to shame targets of opportunity where you spy them. Yes, it’s gratifying to preach at them from the pulpit so that aging cluck-cluckers can be morally flattered. But if you really want to marginalize them, create a market where it is in their best interests to femme themselves up. That begins by getting off the couch and improving oneself for one’s own sake. Or do you expect hypergamous default-feminists to spontaneously reform themselves?

Somebody pay attention to Earl. He is the one-in-a-hundred who gets it.

My point in the post is that foolish Christian men will look at the advertisement and say “Hey, great message!”, and then go ask their wives for permission to attend.

Oh, and since a comment I made was referenced in the OP, let me hasten to explain that attending The Art of Marriage was not my idea! I had no desire to attend whatsoever. My husband insisted we go in order to spread some of what we have learned over the past couple of years and to try to open other Christians’ eyes to some of the unbiblical things being taught in these types of curricula. I wrote about one such incident that took place in our Art of Marriage small group in this post:

Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.

Adam didn’t want to lose out on a chick in her birthday suit…sure God said not to…but my dick says yes. What’s one apple going to do?

Women got it on with evil fallen angels before Noah’s flood…because one would assume they had more supernatural powers than men. I guess all that fun having some powerful being penetrating her hypergamy was worth it when they drowned.

How many women rebelled against Jesus? I could only find Martha…and Jesus put her in her place every time.

And some men are still dumb enough to give her the serpent and the apple.

Or do you expect hypergamous default-feminists to spontaneously reform themselves?

Sort of, but not exactly. I don’t see what’s wrong with Captain Capitalism’s suggestion:

Name calling isn’t revenge. There is really only going to be ONE source of revenge and that is your absence. I shall review it VERY briefly here, but, the most important thing in life is not material wealth, not income, not riches, but your husband/wife. A member of the opposite sex you fall in love with. They are likely to be the single greatest source of happiness in your life. So in you, and millions of other men, extracting yourself from the marriage market, you deny these women the best thing that can happen to them, and thus exact your toll of REAL revenge. But this is COMPLETELY dependent and presupposed on YOU BEING A QUALITY MAN.

If you are in shape, supporting yourself, are interesting, have a profession, have hobbies and have a life, then you in refusing to date certain types of women get your revenge. But if you are fat, uninteresting, can’t support yourself, live with your parents, not hygienic, and just don’t have anything going on, then you won’t get your revenge, you ARE the revenge of others in that women are left with you to date. Ergo, not only is this a reason NOT to call women names, but it is a practical COMMAND for you to get off your ass, get in shape, becoming interesting, and become a man.

He calls it “revenge” but I would call it a form of leadership. When my children are naughty, they lose privileges; when they repent and behave properly, privileges are restored. This is the same thing. If women are horrid, they lose the privilege of a having a husband. When they repent and act right, the privilege may be reinstated.

Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.

But Earl, if this were true, then women could never be at fault for anything. It would always be men’s fault when we don’t behave properly. Yet doesn’t the Bible say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Sin is rebellion against God, so if all have sinned (rebelled), then this must include women, no? We are all guilty. It does women no favors for men to take the blame for our sin because then we lose the opportunity to come to Christ, accept forgiveness, and be saved from the pit of Hell.

GBFM wrote: jesus battled with the old, pedantic, dead-souled scribes in matthew 23, for which he was put to death. king leonidas had to consult with the corrupt, rotting, old counsel. in braveheart robert the bruce’s corrupt father had a face of rotting flesh. bill bennet reminds me of all of these, after a seven-day vegas-bender whence millions of fiat dollars, earned from an insincere, copy-and-paste “book of virtues” were gambled away…..

That was awesome!!!

I listened to Focus on the Beta about a month ago while driving on a trip. The episode was all about “Christian” men understanding their “strong willed” wives. This goofy clam of a chick just kept yammering on about how blah, blah, blah she was. The host didn’t call her out on any of her BS. It was truly disgusting to listen to.

Not really. I believe that you overestimate the effect of that rebellion, particularly against the countermeasures of an engaged, organized, and focused opposite sex, whose decisive power you underestimate. There is no such thing as a battle of the sexes when men are engaged in the issue. War is our thing. Especially since the fairer of the species love to surrender. Sassy little girls who get angry at me are arousing, not intimidating.

With regard to your Titus quotation, what can I say. Sure! That too.

The problem is, that is the woman’s domain. That is for the other sex to figure out. It’s nonsensical for man blogs to get into the weeds there when they are failing so hard protecting the garden. It’s like trimming the plants and nurturing them without ever building a wall around the plot to keep the whole place from nocturnal pillaging. You know? Take care of the log in your sex’s eye before you comment on your sisters’ motes (Matt 7:3).

You are perhaps misinterpreting the very different way men solve problems, and mistaking it for the woman’s way. Men go directly at the sound of gunfire, they change what they can in themselves first, they prepare and trust in their training and give the rest over to exigency. Women give themselves to exigency from the start, and flee to protect themselves from it. They think of root causes and injustices and holistic considerations that should be changed through deliberation and cooperation (cf. modern politics). The wolves are at the door, it’s not fair that they should want in, perhaps they can be persuaded to relinquish their unjust demands? Meantime, men shoot the wolves.

So today’s women are unworthy sluts. Take that as stipulated. Now what are men going to do about it? Wait until they reform themselves? Plead with them that they are only hurting their own future? Quote scripture and verse at them?

No, we are too far gone for all that. Foundations must be torn up and relaid. Preliminary remediation must be undertaken before they gain the ears to listen to The Epistle of Paul to Titus. Those reconstructions are a man’s work, because they involve force and will. But the little chickies have already flown the coop in this generation, haven’t they? So let us direct ourselves to the future, to the girls who have not been spoiled, to children who will not be marinated in toxic feminism as we were. There’s a reason why all men, young and old, prefer young ladies, and not just because they haven’t started to sag yet (PUA pishposh notwithstanding).

You can attend to the details of reforming your daughters, and everyone can leave the light on for the prodigals to return. But the man’s job is to acquire the discipline necessary to act intentionally, to build assets of himself and others, so that he may be the agent to force the culture back into livability. Once the fences are rebuilt, you will find a more receptive audience to Titus among your distaff charges.

Women live and die based off male attention. If they think having protected sex with alphas is male attention they will be in for a real wake up call.

The guys that get it can afford to be picky with women. It isn’t a woman that is going to make us lead, go to the gym, work the best we can, continue the self-improvement train, meet new people, or learn a new skill or hobby. Self-motivation with the help of other male colleagues is what it is going to take.

Then guess what…you become attractive to the opposite sex. I call it “get-off-your-assadon.”

“It would always be men’s fault when we don’t behave properly. Yet doesn’t the Bible say that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Sin is rebellion against God, so if all have sinned (rebelled), then this must include women, no?”

Men are the representation of God on earth. When men rebel against God…women rebel against men. It starts with the father…and continues with the husband.

Due to the rebellious men, the elitists, the Rockefeller fiat money supported feminism peddling it’s propaganda and birth control pills for easy desouling and butthexings…it’s a whole lot easier for women to rebel.

Men have the knowledge of good and evil…women only get it when a man teaches them. Otherwise…women will believe whatever they want to believe. Most women only get evil in this day and age because men are afraid what would happen if they stand up by taking the good side.

I’m not God…but if I would guess how he judges gender it would be if men rebelled against him…and if women rebelled against men. That’s how both genders got kicked out of the garden.

EarlWomen’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.

This means that a man must be physically present and mentally awake 24/7 to guide a woman.
There is a problem. Let me help you see it. I am certainly no scholar of the BIble, as has been demonstrated on this site before, but I am fairly sure that Eve defied and rebelled against her spiritual leader / master, and this in turn led to the downfall of Man described early in Genesis.

The youtube video you are talking about is an advertisement for a DVD series being sold to Christians. I even put it in the title for the slow crowd. My criticism is not of the advertisement, again, slow crowd please consult the title.

Then I’m part of the “slow crowd.” I responded to the material you provided, not to the 7/8ths of the iceberg concealed below the surface. Especially since both you and “Barbarossaa” seemed to think it was significant to get the Two Devils on one YouTube. (“These guys are the all stars of the man up brigade, so it was impressive to see both of them in the same video.”) And, obviously, I don’t trust your characterization of the full series because of how continuously (even zealously) persist on getting Driscoll and especially Bennett wrong.

Is it a bait-and-switch? Then why complain? Come for the manhating Man-Uppers, stay for the truth-delivering Baucham. Joke’s on the harridan!

Anyway, I don’t see how this is relevant to the general tone of complaint engendered in these kind of anti-“man up” posts, which is what I was addressing, Flash Mob.

Incidentally, the sarcasm that begins your post sucks. Use it sparingly, you associate yourself with the superficial snarks. Your work is too good for that.

“Men are the representation of God on earth. When men rebel against God…women rebel against men. It starts with the father…and continues with the husband.”

That approach simply gives women carte blanche to blame men for their failings. “It’s not my fault I’m a slut; it’s my dad’s fault for not supervising me; and all those eeevil alphas’ faults for taking what I offered!”

No. That cannot be. Either a woman has agency and moral accountability; or she does not.

God made it pretty clear where He stands on that when He punished and cursed Eve for her sin; then punished and cursed Adam for his sin.

Two separate individuals with their own free will. Two separate sins; two separate consequences.

Manning up will not thwart a woman’s desire to pick the biggest man. You can’t claim that women respond to alpha male traits and simultaneously ignore the biggest alpha (government force), the husband they love most, will destroy men (their competition). You see, the GOVERNMENT is “Manning Up” and women know that…they’re following government husband in droves, in churches, by the millions, with shameless ferocity.

“Man Up” is the suicide mission of an illiterate. The friends of mine that lost their ministries and their lives may be able to convince you just how suicidal the “Man Up” mission really is, but I doubt it. They paid the price with their businesses, their ministries, their money and their children. Poof!

Thanks ‘Man Up’, see you in court!

If you don’t understand this reality, I don’t blame you…the mind rejects the horrifying as a self-defense mechanism. I used to be Mark Driscoll on steroids. Now I’m Dalrock on Meth.

*Vic does not encourage or advocate the use of illicit substances…especially marriage.

“Either a woman has agency and moral accountability; or she does not.”

Yes but has to get it from somewhere. We’ve seen with single mothers that their ability to have agency and moral accountability is hit or miss at best. And we live a society that tells women that anything they do is good, right, pure, honest, and true. The minute somebody disagrees with HER worldview…their will be hell to pay.

Men have turned away from God…so women are doing what they do and listening to the strongest force. FH probably wants me to say……….SATAN!

However should a godly man stick to the principles set forth by God…he will be a more powerful force than the devil. God always wins.

So it doesn’t bother me if some gals want to slut it up…it doesn’t directly affect me or my soul. I only care about the one I choose to take part in my life.

Eve, as a woman, is primarily ruled by butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozoozo.

Visit a college campus and you will see that when women run things, out goes the Shakespeare, Homer, Moses, and Jesus, and in comes the feminist lit whose hallmark is butt tintglzlzo, gina tinzgzlzlzlzo, entitement transfer of property from men, butt tingzzlzlzo and more butt tinzgzlzlzloozolzzo.

This is because the central bankers, posing as the serpent (lotsas cokas) from Genesis, realized that they could herd women into spearheading the destruction of the family and growth of the state funded via property transfer from men if they promised women all the servicing of all the butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzoozlzozoz they wanted.

It is, literally, the oldest trick in the Book.

And too, they knew they could count on the Driscolls, Bennetts, and Matt Kings to attack and assault their own and castigate and impugn Dalrock and anyone else who followed the true Jesus, logic, God, manly honor, and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ lzzzllzlzlzoz.

do not blame men for the sins of eve and women, as God Himself did not blame men.

man up and read the Bible, bro:

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, 2 Cor. 11.3 and I did eat.
14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent,

Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field;
upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman,

and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said,

“I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.”

man up earl, and before you start hating on men, turn to a woman and repeat the words of God you were born not to deny, but to serve: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.”

I responded to the material you provided, not to the 7/8ths of the iceberg concealed below the surface.

If by this you mean you only looked at the pictures and didn’t read the words, then I think you are onto the real problem. This post isn’t about Driscoll. It isn’t about Bennett. It isn’t about women. It is about a man named Dennis Rainey and the organization he leads (as president), FamilyLife. Dennis Rainey’s FamilyLife hired Sheila Gregoire to write tracts on submission and to teach wives at marriage conferences, and she teaches absolutely awful, insane things. He put another woman on his radio program to explain that wives submit to their husbands by calling the cops on them. Note that she didn’t say “call the cops if you are at risk of serious harm or death”. She echoed Sheila’s “Submit by leading him” BS, with domestic violence as a red herring:

If he’s abusive, call the police—I mean, if necessary—but with the motive of trying to serve and save him—not punish, or dominate, or threaten him…

But you can’t see this. You can’t see any of it, because you are too high on the advertising message Dennis Rainey put together to sell his latest program. I show in great detail what Dennis Rainey is doing, how he is enabling rebellion in very concrete ways, and you do exactly what you are programed to do. And this is the fundamental point of the post. You and an army of men just like you support men like Rainey and his Stepping Up™ program because it feels good, and in the end you don’t really care what he is actually selling so long as it makes you feel good while not making women like Sheila Gregoire and her target audience uncomfortable. What he is selling is feminist rebellion dressed up as biblical manhood, and you simply can’t see it. Even after I explained it in great detail in the OP and reiterated it in my initial response above.

If it is the fault of all these men “complainers” that women are slutting it up, what is it that makes you immune from the same criticism? How is it that you are omnipresent and can magically just “know” that they are less successful than you? How do you just magically know that most men would make horrible husbands and fathers? How do you magically know that 90% of women aren’t fucking the 10% of men who are thugs? How do you know that IF 90% of men became YOUR perfect image of manhood, that the sluts wouldn’t STILL reject them to go slut it up with the 10% thugs? In short, how do you know that it’s not the fault of women and their enablers?

I agree with much of the videos message. Why is this video anti-male propaganda? Pastors are right about allot of twenties men not taking responsibility and becoming adults. Any man who lives with his parents at that age is a loser. The black Pastor (and the young Pastor) made the most direct sense.

I didn’t see any mention of the female role in this. Does female carousel riding absolve men of their responsibilities to become independent successful responsible adults? Nope. I know it’s hard for guys who aren’t getting laid; but is it the girls fault for not motivating them with pussy?

This video makes you see things form a different angle.

I remember a quote from Al Pacino. It stuck with me years after the movie ended. It goes like this: “Pressure. It changes everything. Some people, you squeeze them they focus. Others fold.”

Looks like these guys can’t handle the pressure. Sounds like they need to man up.

I agree with much of the videos message. Why is this video anti-male propaganda? Pastors are right about allot of twenties men not taking responsibility and becoming adults. Any man who lives with his parents at that age is a loser. The black Pastor (and the young Pastor) made the most direct sense.

You and Matt King are enthusiastically proving my point. You want to buy what Dennis Rainey is selling so bad you can’t see it even after I point it out in great detail. First in the OP, then in my first reply to Matt King, and then again in my second reply to him.

1. It makes Dennis Rainey and the Family Life people feel like they are bravely standing up for biblical principles when they shriek “Man up!”

2. In reality, Rainey and Family Life and Gregoire are showing themselves to be cowardly because they cower in fear at telling women to “woman up and submit to your husbands in EVERYTHING, even if he is sinning.” Rainey admits this because some things in the bible make “the hair on the back of his neck stand up”. He’s AFRAID to tell women to submit.

3. Rainey and Family Life are not really doing anything to fix the problem.

I didn’t see any mention of the female role in this. Does female carousel riding absolve men of their responsibilities to become independent successful responsible adults? Nope. I know it’s hard for guys who aren’t getting laid; but is it the girls fault for not motivating them with pussy?

Yea, actually it does. Especially for gamma men like myself, since we don’t stand a chance with women anyway. Success brings us nothing, just another used pussy. Feel like working for that? Nope, well that’s what you’re asking gamma and omega men to do.

This post isn’t about Driscoll. It isn’t about Bennett. It isn’t about women. It is about a man named Dennis Rainey and the organization he leads (as president), FamilyLife. Dennis Rainey’s FamilyLife hired Sheila Gregoire to write tracts on submission and to teach wives at marriage conferences, and she teaches absolutely awful, insane things. He put another woman on his radio program to explain that wives submit to their husbands by calling the cops on them.

As a representative of the Slow Crowd, I appreciate the Cliff’s Notes summary.

But that’s called burying the lede. As every reporter is taught on the first day of J School, sum up your story in the first sentence, don’t get cutesy or artsy, get to the point. The up-front paragraphs, including a ten-minute video and a link to a far inferior screed, was the same shuck-and-jive contumely you have for two of your favorite bogeymen. If you wanted critics to get into the weeds with you about “Family Life,” you might have mentioned it a single time in the first ten paragraphs, because your bad-faith beginning indicated that a close reading of the entire post would have been unprofitable.

But I’m not here to critique your writing style so much as to urge you to get free of your bugaboos. They are weighing down your righteous message, brother. You are encouraging an ethos of turning would-be allies into certain enemies rather than focusing on fraternal correction. No person’s name should be made into a curse word (GBFM’s specialty).

Do you not destroy enemies by befriending them? Why not present your case in good faith instead of condemning names wholesale for some erroneous ideas they are promoting? I know that these ideas are important and that they can cause great disruption and even damnation, but arguing literally ad hominem (“to the man”) mistakes souls for sins, men for their errors, and does nothing to shore up the integrity of your cause. “It isn’t about women. It is about a man named…”

I dunno. Maybe much of your readership is still confused about the feminist streak in modern Protestantism. I would assume the opposite, that they are as alert to the problem and its many manifestations as you are, particularly since you have coined a (malodorous) word for the phenomenon, “Churchian.” You rally and support your readers with your body of work, but you are not counteracting the malign influence of the opposition in any effective way. To do that, you can’t just force the “brigade” to acknowledge they are duped by feminism so much as you have to show them that your mutual goal — presumably to bring forth The Kingdom — is being poorly served by their good if misguided intentions. That would require good faith, patience with your fellow sinners, and a belief that a man is more than the sum of his errors.

“Looks like these guys can’t handle the pressure. Sounds like they need to man up.”

If a guy can’t handle the pressure, bleating and screaming at him to “man up” isn’t going to help him.

He will rightly look back at you and say “Why? What for? To what end? For what purpose?”

Today, “manning up” looks like Captain Capitalism: earning just enough for himself, to live on his own, and dealing with the consequences of his actions.

When I hear churchians like Dennis Rainey, Beta Family Life, James Dobson, Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Beta, and such groups talk about how men need to man up and step up, what they are really saying is “Man up and marry the sluts”. What other conclusion should I draw when single mothers are excused for sexual immorality? What other conclusion is there when Stanton points up some single moms saying they’re going to just make babies and become single moms because there are no good men around?

What Stanton is really saying is that not only should women’s sexual immorality be excused; but that Christian men’s refusing to improve themselves, get jobs, and marry those women are to blame for THEIR decisions and THEIR sexual immorality.

Dalrock is leading the charge in exalting civility, fatherhood, the nation, and the classical, exalted, manly Christian spirit via his most eloquent words, wit, and talent for analyses.

Yes, he is. Why do I criticize it? Not because I hate people wholesale, like you do. Not because I mistake the man with his utterances, like you do. Not because I declare a man’s name anathema, like you do.

No, I offer criticism because I want his mission to succeed. He’s the driver in the armored car delivering our fortune to the vault, but along the way he got a flat tire. I’m urging him to stop and fix it, even offering him to help. You are cheerleading him on, to drive on the rim, sparks flying behind him. Because vigorous head-nodding is your only conception of respect.

You are encouraging an ethos of turning would-be allies into certain enemies rather than focusing on fraternal correction.

You’re failure here is to recognize just who is Brothers in need of fraternal correction (in this case, that would be YOU and your white knighting for these false prophets and teachers of Churchianity), and who are the false prophets and teachers proffering a false, sinful and destructive message for gain of Mammon.

Matthew 7:15 –
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

By promomoting the model of feminist rebellion as patriarchal authority, Rainey, Driscoll, Bennett and Gregoire are not Brothers needing fraternal correction, but ravening wolves that need to be put down as the rabid destroyers of true Christianity.

Well, you see earl, I’ve tried and I just wasn’t good enough. I’m not fat, I work, I have my house, car and it isn’t good enough. Just good enough for used up pussy 30 + years old. I am just not attractive enough.

I say,” Rejoice oh gamma-man, the world’s problems are not yours to deal with!”

You want to buy what Dennis Rainey is selling so bad you can’t see it.

More preposterous bad faith. I don’t want to buy dipshit Christianized feminism served to me by Protestant jabber mouths, and I have no idea how you can even say that with a straight face.

I want to lead faulty preachers out of their confusion because, unlike many other truth tellers, they’ve got the most important thing in the world right: Jesus of Nazareth is God Incarnate, Christ the Lord. All else is commentary.

Therefore, they are not bogeymen. They are prodigals. They are brothers in Christ. They do not require persuasion or force so much as they require clarification, reminder, and patience. When I pray alongside them in Jesus’ Name I may rely on their good faith and they may rely on mine, that neither of us would profane the Word with willful deception, that our errors are honest ones to be worked in the presence of and by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

That is a mighty force, haven’t you heard? Together we “will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to [us]” (Matt 17:20).

Reading the transcript between Dennis and Bob after the sermon, I got the impression that these men were afraid of the female response. Everyone keeps asking why men won’t up and take hold of matters. The answer is that many of them are afraid. But what are they afraid of? I would guess that they fear God. However, it is because they have been taught by churches that God is a ally of women and an enemy of men. So men fear women because they fear the judgment of God is they do not submit to women.

…that neither of us would profane the Word with willful deception, that our errors are honest ones to be worked in the presence of and by the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Except that is precisely what Dalrock is calling out here! It is the entire point!

These “Leaders” are willfully subverting the true meaning of the scripture to appeal to the modern feminist paradigm. To do otherwise would destroy their ability to profit off of selling their products and services of their “ministry.” That you fail to see this is astounding!

Or perhaps you yourself are an agent of willful deception, a ravening wolf that needs to be put down as well.

By promomoting [sic] the model of feminist rebellion as patriarchal authority, Rainey, Driscoll, Bennett and Gregoire are not Brothers needing fraternal correction…

Oh ye of little faith, who would sell his birthright for a mess of pottage!

Nice try, Satan. Get thee behind me. You are a stumbling block to me. I will never reject any man, not my worst enemy, as being “not Brothers,” for Christ commands me otherwise (Matt 5:44, 23:8). It’s not complicated.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

These “Leaders” are willfully subverting the true meaning of the scripture… [emph. added]

Please. Demonstrate their willfulness to “subvert[] … scripture”! That’s quite an accusation, son. Which naturally leads your excitable kind to regard all men with which you disagree as “ravening wol[ves] that need[] to be put down.”

earl-“Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.”
————————————————
Here is the same old notion that women don’t have any agency. It’s not women’s fault for bad behavior, says the Protestant trad-con! No! No! No! Women have no responsibity for their own behavior. ALWAYS blame the man. ALWAYS BLAME THE MAN.

Even after years of posts about women’s behavior at Dalrock’s site and other sites, these two clowns like earl and Matthew King continue to push their Protestant trad-con nonsense. These two guys might be even worse than feminsts. Earl and Matthew KIng are wolves in sheeps clothing, giving out their terrible adivce, always justified by some bible verse.

What might the worst thing is that guys like Matthew King claim to be theological experts on Christianity. Guys like Matthew King always claim that THEIR version of christianity is the correct version, Apparently, everyone else’s christianity is wrong. HIS is the correct version. And they use their version of Christian theology to give absolutely HORRIBLE advice. Advice that has already proven to be wrong by countless others. But that doesn’t matter to these two guys. Oh no. The delusion of guys like this is unbelievable.

Matthew King- “some pay attention to Earl. He is the one-in-a-hundred who gets it.”
———————————-
Matthew King and Earl. Two peas in a pod.

You said: “Please. Demonstrate their willfulness to “subvert[] … scripture”! That’s quite an accusation, son. Which naturally leads your excitable kind to regard all men with which you disagree as “ravening wol[ves] that need[] to be put down.””

Previously you said: “More preposterous bad faith. I don’t want to buy dipshit Christianized feminism served to me by Protestant jabber mouths, and I have no idea how you can even say that with a straight face.”

Earl“All a man has to do is tell her what he expects and what he is about. If she decides to rebel against that…then it is of her own free will.

This contradicts your previous statement:

EarlWomen’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.”

EarlNo it doesn’t….a man guides a woman by telling her what he expects.

Sorry, it still is a contradiction, because when he is not there, he is not there to guide her. When he is not there, he is relying upon her to guide herself.

She rebelled against God.

Exactly. God was Eve’s spiritual leader, her teacher, etc. And so? What happened? And whose fault was it? What are you trying tod say, here, Earl… God wasn’t there to guide her? God failed to make clear what he was about? God did not tell Eve what he expected? God wasn’t omnipotent enough? God wasn’t omniscient enough? If God had only been more Alpha, Eve would have obeyed his instructions even when she thought he wasn’t looking?

You are suggesting that if men just “manUP” enough, they can do a better job with a modern woman than God did with Eve, aren’t you? You are an intelligent man, I am sure you can spot the problem with this idea.

Now, did Eve have any role in this? Or was she just a helpless l’il girl whose spiritual teacher and guide wasn’t clear enough in his expectations, i.e. she lacked a strong entity in her life to guide her?

Read carefully, paranoiac. I did not call you Satan, I called out the temptation presented to me through your words. I name the evils in my midst, against which I am powerless, to rally the grace of Christ to vanquish them.

Your iniquity or lack thereof is between you and God, but it is my fraternal duty to exhort you to maintain a healthy conscience when I perceive it failing, brother.

You think this is “reject[ion]”? The moment you regard an attempt at fraternal correction as a rejection of your soul (as you reject your brothers in Christ above), is the moment the liar from the beginning tightens his scaly grip. I desire to see all men saved, you especially. Why else would I intervene when I see the Enemy advancing on you?

If I hated you as you hate certain disagreeable brothers in Christ, I would leave you to your own devices. Today’s your lucky day, because I take my obligations seriously.

While I was out buying dental floss earlier today, I found myself idly scratching an itch on the back of my leg. When I became aware of this, and paid attention to what I was doing, I realized that I was scratching a mosquito bite. So I had to stop, because as any adult knows, persistent scratching of such an insect bite leads to bleeding, possible infection, etc. Ignoring it doesn’t make the itch go away, but it will heal faster. Short time thinking vs. longer time thinking at work? Yes.

Children with mosquito bites must be treated in order to encourage healing. Adults can monitor them, reminding them over and over “Don’t scratch that, or it will bleed”. In public places a bit of shame / embarrassment can be used, “Don’t scratch that, people will see and point at you!”. Eventually something else will be required, though – calamine lotion or some other compound to suppress the itching, a small bandage to keep fingernails off of the bite, and so forth. Because children can’t be expected to keep from scratching that itch without some sort of help, be it adult monitoring, or medical intervention. Ultimately the child must understand that the self control required is a good thing. The child must be willing to obey an instruction, even when it means not scratching that itch.

The child must submit to the authority of the adult, one way or another. The adult cannot duct tape the child’s body in order to prevent scratching of the insect bite, at some point the child must do what he or she is told to, even when he or she doesn’t want to obey. If the child won’t do that, then sooner or later the child will scratch on that insect bite when the adult monitor is distracted.

“Submit” is a verb, not a noun. It is an action that a human performs, not something that is done to them.

But that’s called burying the lede. As every reporter is taught on the first day of J School, sum up your story in the first sentence, don’t get cutesy or artsy, get to the point.

The only thing I buried was a hook deep in an eager sucker’s mouth. It isn’t burying the lede when you put it in the headline. Moreoever, you are mistaking my blog for a news source like the AP.

The up-front paragraphs, including a ten-minute video and a link to a far inferior screed, was the same shuck-and-jive contumely you have for two of your favorite bogeymen. If you wanted critics to get into the weeds with you about “Family Life,” you might have mentioned it a single time in the first ten paragraphs, because your bad-faith beginning indicated that a close reading of the entire post would have been unprofitable.

You are so blinded by the feel good message of the video you still can’t see what is written in the post. Forget the first ten paragraphs, I said the video was brilliant advertising in the title, and the first words after the video are:

The video itself is some of the best advertising I’ve ever seen. It is perfectly tuned to appeal to the key target audience, which is quite obviously Christian women. At the same time it is designed to appeal to the secondary audience, Christian men. Christian men can watch the video and think:

Finally, someone is fighting the feminism in the church and teaching men to reclaim their position as head of the household! I’ll go ask my wife if she will allow me to attend.

Following the lead of Courageous, the video features a thoroughly broken husband being harangued by his ballbusting wife. For a moment he weakly pushes back, but then she threatens to move out and he submits to her authority. Those who support traditional marriage are no doubt encouraged by this exchange and the larger message of the video, assuming this video series is secretly about returning to the biblical instruction on headship and submission.

This is the point of the post. Foolish Christian men will respond to the emotional feel good (while non threatening to the feminist rebellion) message and eat it up.

Just like you.

In fact, even after I explained the post to you, you wrote (perfectly echoing the hypothetical foolish Christian man in the quote above):

Is it a bait-and-switch? Then why complain? Come for the manhating Man-Uppers, stay for the truth-delivering Baucham. Joke’s on the harridan!

How did I know what you were going to write before you wrote it? And why did you fall for it even after I told you you would?

Even after years of posts about women’s behavior at Dalrock’s site and other sites, these two clowns like earl and Matthew King continue to push their Protestant trad-con nonsense. These two guys might be even worse than feminsts. Earl and Matthew KIng are wolves in sheeps clothing, giving out their terrible adivce, always justified by some bible verse.

Actually, and it pains me to say this, both Matt and Earl are Catholics.

I watched the video and saw some shrew of a wife order her husband down to collect her 26 year old son from the bar, or she is going to move out to a trailer park, and this is what passes for leadership and manning-up?

When I read Matthew King’s comments, I shake my head in disbelief. It’s difficult for me to believe that someone like this actually exists. He sound almost like a professional troll, like some ex-christian who just want to make christians look ridiculous. Or like an SNL sketch mocking fundamentalist christians.

Matthew King-“Nice try, Satan. Get thee behind me.”—-

Who could have made you do that……could it be S-A-T-A-N!!! Ha, Ha. Now I recognize who it is. Matthew King is Dana Carvey as The Church Lady from Saturday Night LIve.

Matthew King- “Will you go to church. Go to church. Will you go to church.”—-

Many of the people posting here are christians. We were raised in churches of various types. Dalrock himself comes from a christian background. Who are you telling to go to church, you moron. Matthew King, you really do live in bizarro world.

Women can be more easily tricked than men. Men have a wonderful ability to separate emotions from logic when coming to making the best decision they can make. Women can be talked into their own destruction by a smooth talker.

I guess after the discussion we’ve got into…I’ll say that Eve did play a part in making a decision when she bit the apple, or that women do make a decision when they choose their lifestyle…what I am also saying is that women are the weaker sex and they do need a good strong male presence to protect them from themselves.

It seems like men want to absolve themselves of any leadership or responsibility when it comes to their women and their decisions. I wasn’t blaming men for her sins…I’m shining a light on the fact that you play a key part in keeping her from committing sins.

Answer: Because he is not doing what he is supposed to do. He isn’t taking the initiative with his son. He isn’t being a man. He’s a fat slob parked on the couch watching T.V. eating Cheeto’s and drinking beer.

This guy, this fat Dad with a bad back, this guy isn’t a real man. He is a lazy ball-less slob.

Earl…I’ll say that Eve did play a part in making a decision when she bit the apple, or that women do make a decision when they choose their lifestyle…

Eve did play a part in making a decision when she bit the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
There are four (4) entities recorded in that part of Genesis:

1. God
2. Adam
3. Eve
4. Serpent / tempter

If Eve did play a part in making a decision then some other entity also played a part in her decision. So which of these is actually, truly, really responsible for Eve’s actions? Is it God? Is it Adam? Is it tempter? Is it Eve?

It seems like men want to absolve themselves of any leadership or responsibility when it comes to their women and their decisions.

It seems like you want to load men with responsibility, but cannot see that they are denied any and all authority. In the West at this time, a married man has only the amount of authority over his wife that she is willing to give him. That may well be sufficient – SunShineMary is but one of several examples – or it may be totally insufficient, as the long list of men who were divorced by rebellious wives attests. Responsibility without authority is tyranny. You would have men lead, but not have women submit. A leader with rebellious followers is not actually leading anyone save himself.

That is the heart of Eve’s actions. She refused to obey God. She rebelled against God. Do you seriously propose that any mere mortal man has more authority over his wife than God had over Eve?

To put it another way, Eve had an itch. So did Adam. Eve chose to scratch her itch….and part of the curse upon her is what? That she must obey her man, even as she desires to rule over him, isn’t it? Or am I off base? I freely admit a great deficiency in this area of knowledge. But I do not admit to a lack of knowledge of where responsibility shorn of authority leads to…quite the contrary.

I wasn’t blaming men for her sins…I’m shining a light on the fact that you play a key part in keeping her from committing sins.

If a man is to “play a key part in keeping her from committing sins”, then in fact you are stating that her sins are indeed his fault, and thus you are indeed blaming men for her sins. Men who have no authority over her behavior are to be held responsible for that behavior. Look around you – how is this concept working out in the real world, away from blogs?

what I am also saying is that women are the weaker sex and they do need a good strong male presence to protect them from themselves.

It is impossible to protect someone if they are free to defy your instructions. You appear to be wanting women to have the freedom to do what they wish, and send the bill to the nearest man.
The word for this is “feminism”. Are you certain that you wish to stick to the “men have duties, women have choices” feminist trope?

“Do you seriously propose that any mere mortal man has more authority over his wife than God had over Eve?”

God gave man the authority. So it’s not more…but the same.

But I see you still aren’t getting what I’m saying.

Men set the rules. It is up to her to follow those rules or rebel. If she rebels…that’s on her.

Men should set good rules if they submit to God’s will. That’s his key part in keeping her from sinning. Jesus did this twice with the adulterous women that came into his path. Whether the women followed that advice or not…is on them.

If a man is too afraid to set rules, or only thinks with his dick, or gives her the responsibilty of making tough decisions…then he isn’t protecting her.

EarlMen set the rules. It is up to her to follow those rules or rebel. If she rebels…that’s on her.

But the results are on him. She has the authority over herself, he has the responsibility for her actions. She may submit if she wants to but he must take responsibility for her. She has choices and freedom. He has duties and responsibility.

She gets to scratch that mosquito bite all she wants, and it’s up to him to deal with the consequences, because it’s his duty to protect her, and her choice to rebel all she wants.

If a man is too afraid to set rules, or only thinks with his dick, or gives her the responsibilty of making tough decisions…then he isn’t protecting her.

And if he sets rules and she breaks them, then it’s all his fault, for not protecting her…because she owns the choices, and he owns the the consequences.

Remember, “submit” is a verb. It’s something people do, not something that is done to them. The notion that men must lead, and women may submit is very popular in the feminized, feminist, churches to be sure. But it doesn’t work as advertised, does it? No, it does not.

Well what I can I say… The video advertisement makes a strong impression on the state of Christian male responsibility. I don’t hear anything about Christian female responsibility. However female responsibility is not what this video advertisement is about.

It should be said thatt with the apple example in the garden of Eden, both man and women got dressed and decided not to go around naked anymore. Now, people are losing modest dress and going back to sin. ANYONE can see the connection.

The problem I see with that video is that they intentionally ignore the lessons being taught to young men by their mothers and the other women in the Church. The Evangelical feminists have been teaching their lessons for 4 decades and the boys have been taking notes. Their role got erased so they are opting out. Along come the hand-wringing blue pill dispensing “pastors” who see the hierarchy they have helped establish going over a cliff and the only people they can blame is the young men that have decided to opt out. This spin is not recoverable, but they will makes some more bucks from the salivating masses of feminists and pretend like they are really addressing the problem. Meanwhile, they will finish driving the wedge between them and the boys that they hope to turn into obedient beta’s (or as they would put it “men”).

“It should be said thatt with the apple example in the garden of Eden, both man and women got dressed and decided not to go around naked anymore. Now, people are losing modest dress and going back to sin. ANYONE can see the connection.”

@Matthew King: “What if she files for divorce, takes my kids? Or calls the police? What if she writes a mean blog post about how horrible a husband I am? These are phantoms, fantastical fears you would rather have direct you in the abstract hypothetical than confront them in the face and thereby demonstrate they are not real.”

Shades of St. Elsewhere! So, the date is actually June 2008 and the last 5 years that I thought I lived through were just a nightmare — my wife of (then) 26 years didn’t ambush me with a divorce filing in July 2008; I didn’t work my butt off for 2 years trying to reconcile while she did nothing; I didn’t have to resort to an ultimatum; she didn’t respond to that ultimatum with another ambush divorce filing in July 2010; we didn’t litigate for 16 months at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars I didn’t have because she was asking for $24,000/year in alimony FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE and DOUBLE the child support called for by state law, only to end up with almost exactly the financial and custody arrangements I had proposed from day one; she didn’t immediately find a twice-divorced man online and marry him 13 months after the divorce was final; she didn’t move 400 miles away to the back of beyond, taking my daughter with her and leaving her youngest son behind; I’m not broke because of the increased living expenses and decreased income; and our 4 kids (including two old enough to be out of the house) don’t have to face every holiday and celebration (including a college graduation and a high school graduation this year) for the rest of their lives trying to divide their time between dad and mom because mom was too selfish to stick it out and keep her promises to God, to me, and to the church.

Man, you have no idea how glad I am you woke me up from the nightmare. Imagine how surprised and excited my kids are going to be tomorrow — not to mention my non-ex-wife and her non-second-husband — when I tell them all that this was all just a . . . what was it? Oh yeah, a “phantom[], [a] fantastical fear[],” and something that was “not real.”

Hey, Matthew, get your head out of your nether regions or shut up and go elsewhere.

I believe Anonymous 71 reminded us that female submission activates male leadership.
If Adam was not “alpha” enough to prevent Eve from failing then no man is “man enough”.
If God was not “alpha” enough to prevent Eve from failing then no man is “man enough”.

It is amazing that such a simple chapter of scripture can be so routinely distorted. (The pride that lurks in the heart of men. (“Let ME – the mighty muscled one of smooth tongue show these little man-boys how its done!”)

Men should strive to be the best they can be – but not for female validation but from their own innate drive, a flame that should be fostered and nourished by their fathers, and given fuel by society.

Instead men are taught that validation comes in the form of woman. A man’s worth is not based on whether he has a wife, has sexed 100 women, or falls under one of the silly Greek letters.

The Great Books For Men teach of honor, continence, mastery, strength etc.
These are qualities we should cultivate.
Alas, it seems instructors are hard to find, and clowns like Driscoll are obviously useless cowards in that quest.

I apologize to the protestants for labeling Matthew King and Earl as protestants. Linking these two morons to Protestantism was a real slander against protestants. Since I was raised protestant myself, I’m glad to know it wasn’t us who created these two pieces of work.

This comment thread, however, is a gold mine that shows these two guys screwed up ideas. Wow.

“Remember, “submit” is a verb. It’s something people do, not something that is done to them. The notion that men must lead, and women may submit is very popular in the feminized, feminist, churches to be sure. But it doesn’t work as advertised, does it? No, it does not.”

No…but let me see if I am getting this right or what you are eluding to.

If a woman refuses to submit…then a man has the right to refuse to lead.

Because if that is the case…that is a no in my book for both genders.

The reason why things are so heywired is because nobody wants to submit anymore…and only wants to rebel.

Thanks. Sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing between heresy in Church doctrine in it’s own right and what the feminists have brought in. It is far beyond submission. God being nothing but a grandmotherly ball of gooey love is definitely in the supporting cast.

earl said, The reason why things are so heywired is because nobody wants to submit anymore…and only wants to rebel.

Forgive me if this sounds a bit far fetched. I think the church, especially evangelical Christianity, overemphasizes the resurrection and second coming of Christ. Such a view holds Jesus in a position of dynamic power that is a source of empowerment for Christians. Because He lives I am justified to whatever I desire, including rebellion.

However, focusing on the death of Christ as a historical event places the emphasis back on Christ and His work to redeem mankind. In such a view, man is weak and pathetic in his efforts to do good and right compared to power of the One who actually did what was good and right and did so for those who do not deserve it.

Jesus is not a glowing, magical, personal empowerment battery who is my BFF. He is the Christ, the Holy One whose power and strength is far beyond my own and whose act of sacrifice demands my fearful submission.

“Because He lives I am justified to whatever I desire, including rebellion.”

That does seem to be the general theme to the Evangelicals…they are saved by the blood of Christ so they can do whatever they want.

Catholics though…have confession. Everytime during the Mass…the Eucharist retells the story of the Passion. Catholics are aware of God’s mercy…so we don’t despire….however we also know that we aren’t supposed to presume we will have God’s mercy because he is a just judge, so we keep trying to improve our lives by the ridding of sin and not committing those sins again.

Only by grace which you can get through prayer and the sacrements can you even have a decent shot of seeing that type of improvement.

Matt and earl are correct in that husbands are commanded by God to lead in their marriages irrespective of what the wife is doing. If he is doing his responsibility to be a leader, even if his wife disobeys.

On the otherside, there is no doubt that a lack of submission is more divisive (e.g. a house divided against itself will not stand) than a husband’s “failure” to lead.

The husband sins if he is not responding to his God given role (loving his wife, washing her in the Word, being considerate of her as the weaker vessel), just as the wife sins if she is not responding to her God given role (respecting, submitting).

One of the major problems that occurs is defining exactly what is “loving his wife” and “leading his wife” because the Churchians implicitly believe that it depends on her feelings. Incorrect. If you are leading according to the Word of God — All Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training — then you are doing your duty. Yes, we as Christians like teaching and training… but we shy away from correcting and rebuking as men because we like to avoid conflict. If you as a man do not shy away from this and are acting according to Scripture you are pursuing righteousness. Your reward will be in heaven.

It is best that we understand that, as men talking to men, we have responsibilities to do what God has commanded us irrespective of what women are doing. We know that a lack of submission is inherently more damaging than a lack of leadership, but that does not absolve us of responsibility to do it anyway.

We must always be reminded of two things.

1. You are your own moral agent (men and women, husbands and wives). Are you doing what God has commanded? And,

2. You cannot change another person who does not want to change. Men and women have their own choice whether or not to follow God’s commands, but we also have the responsibliity if they are a fellow Christian to admonish them if they are not — tell them in private, tell them with 2-3 others, tell the church and then if they still refuse then excommunicate them.

Thank God for Dalrock. I used to be just like Michael and Matt King and it nearly killed me, robbed me of my children and destroyed my family. I don’t blame Michael and Matt, I just hope they learn before they’re kneeling on their front lawn with their belongings scattered around them.

I did not know anything about this Pastor Driscoll. What I mean is I never bothered listening to his sermons before. But listening to his first prayer almost made me sick. I can’t believe this man would mix slanderous accusations while praying to God like this in front of his congregation. I’m still listening but so far everything about this Pastor seems wrong. I pray this is not what the modern chruch has degenerated into. I would never, never, never attend a church like this if I heard a Pastor saying these things. I might even do the unthinkable and leave right then and there.

I’m truly sorry to hear about the tragedy you’ve endured. It’s beyond horrific. Emotional fiscal destruction of yourself and your children. I can’t imagine. However as painful as this is I need to ask a question: why did she divorce you? What was her reason? Were you anything like the man in this advertisement? No offense.

I believe Anonymous 71 reminded us that female submission activates male leadership.
If Adam was not “alpha” enough to prevent Eve from failing then no man is “man enough”.
If God was not “alpha” enough to prevent Eve from failing then no man is “man enough”.

This is a decent stating of what I am getting at when I flubbed my verbiage on my blog and used chronological language of going first. These things are statements of being. They are not conditional. So regardless of the chronology, until she submits there is no leading going on, only leadership being modeled in the truest sense of the word.

@Michael: “I’m truly sorry to hear about the tragedy you’ve endured. It’s beyond horrific. Emotional fiscal destruction of yourself and your children. I can’t imagine. However as painful as this is I need to ask a question: why did she divorce you? What was her reason? Were you anything like the man in this advertisement? No offense.”

First, why do you need to ask a question? Why isn’t Matthew responding?

Second, do you want her stated reasons for the divorce or my analysis (shared by others, including counselors), which I (obviously) think is closer to the truth? I’ll give you both. Her stated reasons (for brevity, I’ll omit my defense/response): financial irresponsibility, loose parenting, inadequate spiritual leadership, “unfaithfulness” via (past) pornography, and “emotional abuse.” My analysis: severe lack of trust in God so that when things inevitably were not perfect with me she had no fall back, rebellion, frigidity, female solipsism elevated to Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and irrationality (as a mutual friend told her more than once, divorce makes financial problems worse, not better). A pastor and a Christian marriage counselor both told her she had no biblical grounds for divorce; the latter told her that instead I had grounds for divorce due to her long-term disrespect and sexual refusal.

I don’t know whether I was anything like the man in the advertisement; I haven’t watched it, and I was under the impression there is more than one man in the advertisement. I can say that I was the typical evangelical churchman believing that I was responsible to “man up.” I believed Gary Smalley, Dennis Rainey, et al. when they told me that if my wife wasn’t submitting it was because I wasn’t loving her enough. Then I read Emerson Eggerichs’s Love and Respect and the scales fell off: she was as obligated to respect me unconditionally as I was to love her unconditionally. Not only was she failing to do so (for at least 10 years before her first divorce filing), she was refusing to repent or to do anything else about it. I accepted counselors’ rebukes and worked to change; she did not. I repented and apologized for the pornography; she did not repent or apologize for her sexual refusal. I read all the books the counselors recommended; she did not (including refusing to read Love and Respect).

As a result, I know this both intellectually and from hard personal experience: a Christian husband can truly love his wife, can make her and the kids the center of his world, can be broken and apologetic about the times he screws up, can be careful to include her in all decisions — deferring to her often (as a “servant leader”) and seeking consensus at all other times, can be a leader in the church for all the right reasons (adult Sunday School class teacher, deacon, children’s program worker, etc.), can work hard to be a spiritual leader at home (albeit not perfectly and/or not to his wife’s satisfaction) — all of this consistently and long-term — but still his Christian wife, for reasons of her own choosing or disposition, can deem him unsatisfactory and treat him with such disrespect and contempt that it is entirely accurate to call it rebellion.

Just as bad, I also know that the wife can respond this way with absolutely no consequences from the church. During her rebellion, she will not hear any preaching against her behavior or attitude. Once she files for divorce, she is surrounded by sympathetic and non-judging church sisters. She is never confronted by any pastor or church leader (in part because she is able to avoid or quit any church where there might be a risk of such). Her church sisters will then cheerlead for her as she pursues a rebound relationship, even where the new man’s marital history raises all kinds of red flags. All of this on top of a legal system that, as we all know, not only allows but incentivizes her unilateral pursuit of a divorce by guaranteeing her at least some cash and prizes.

I’ve tried to be thorough, but I have no problem with follow-up questions. I’ll tell you the truth.

Anonymous Reader“Remember, “submit” is a verb. It’s something people do, not something that is done to them. The notion that men must lead, and women may submit is very popular in the feminized, feminist, churches to be sure. But it doesn’t work as advertised, does it? No, it does not.”

EarlNo…but let me see if I am getting this right or what you are eluding to.
If a woman refuses to submit…then a man has the right to refuse to lead.

If a woman refuses to submit, then leading her is not possible. It is possible to manage her, to be sure. Managing someone looks very different, and feels very different, from leading. It may look pretty much the same to the outside world, but they are two different things.

For a start, managing someone often becomes the minimization of damage. It’s damage control. There’s not much joy in damage control – necessity, but not joy.

Because if that is the case…that is a no in my book for both genders.

A “no” … what? What “no” are you referring to? Where is the “no”? This is not clear.

The reason why things are so heywired is because nobody wants to submit anymore…and only wants to rebel.

Men are not allowed to rebel in this society unless they have great financial resources, such as a fat trust fund. Rather a lot of men who rebel either wind up on the street, or in prison, in some cases thanks to laws enacted by feminists with the cheerful help of traditionalists – you know, the “deadbeat dads” who can’t meet the demands placed on them by their ex wives and the family court system.

Women’s rebellion is celebrated, it is precious, and so special that it must be funded with taxpayer’s dollars. Yet, all of your ire is directed at men, men who have zero power to change anything other than themselves. Why is that?

Do you see any birds flying with only one wing? Me either. Yet you seem to be of the opinion that marriage demands much from men and nothing at all from women. That’s one wing, Earl, not two.

It doesn’t fly, not in the real world, no matter how hard the poor bird flaps that one wing it ain’t gonna fly.

There you go again, insisting that effective male leadership initiates effective female submission. You need to stop and ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE, starting with Genesis. God was Eve’s spiritual leader and teacher, yet Eve sinned. Against God Himself. Yet, you confused men tell us if we man-up our wives will submit? Driscoll shouted, HOW DARE YOU? I say to you, How Dare You tell me I have to outperform God?

there are several places in the Bible where it refers to contentious women. One says it is better to live on a roof top than be married to a CW. The other says it is better to live in the desert than to be married to a CW. Recently, someone showed me a place where it says he who can control a contentious woman can restrain the wind, though some versions use different words. Proverbs 27:16.

And, @Earl. >>Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her.

Same old heresy. Women either submit or they do not, period. That is why there is an unconditional command in the Bible for women to submit, but no unconditional command for men to lead, though many of you imagine there is.

By the way, someone suggested Matt is a sheep in wolves clothing. No, he is plainly dresses as a wolf, speaking against the clear instructions in the Bible.

@Earl: >>If a woman refuses to submit…then a man has the right to refuse to lead.

You made that up. Let me try it again. If a woman refuses to submit, A MAN CANNOT LEAD. There is no way to say it any simpler. Actually it is worse than that. Men don’t even try to lead rebelllious women, God knew that when he told women to submit.

By the way, an alert man I know told me to read Genesis 3:17. It says man is cursed BECAUSE HE LISTENED TO HIS WIFE when he ate the fruit. He dug through the Bible and he concludes the sin which got him cursed was not eating the Bible, but listening to his wife, thus violating the leadership role he was assigned. I am not sure of this yet, but it does say that.

“Women’s rebellion is celebrated, it is precious, and so special that it must be funded with taxpayer’s dollars. Yet, all of your ire is directed at men, men who have zero power to change anything other than themselves. Why is that?”

@Michael: I don’t have a problem answering your request for more details. But I would like to know the point of your asking. None of the additional details are going to change my description of my manhood/leadership in the 5th paragraph of my previous response. Nevertheless, I’ll give them to you if there’s a worthwhile point to the exercise. What is that point? Thanks.

Michael: In my view, I had at least 50% culpability in the relationship issues but 0% culpability in the divorce and remarriage (unless I can be held responsible for her fear that if she did not make herself unavailable quickly I might make strides in winning her back even after the divorce). I was far from perfect. I carried a porn weakness into the marriage that I indulged sporadically; while it was entirely my sin, there was a correlation between the strength or frequency of the temptation and the availability or unavailability of married sex; I could be immature and insufficiently attentive/sympathetic, though I was not a boob or a sloth; I earned two post-graduate degrees at a top 10 program in the first four years of our marriage, working part-time and summers all but the first year; I lived in the suburbs rather than on campus and commuted 2-3 hours a day because she did not want to live or work in the campus neighborhood; we never missed church, including special services; we tithed on our (her) $600/month income; I had her blessing on my choice of post-graduation job and city; I welcomed her father to live in close proximity and then in the same house; I supported her through 7 years of infertility, 4 births, and 3 miscarriages; we mutually chose the church we joined and attended faithfully for 14 years; I spent too much money on our home and improvements to it for her and the kids, though I did build a $60,000 401k; I used that money, with her blessing, to start a new law firm that was never profitable for me and that left us effectively bankrupt, but I held the creditors off until we could move to Idaho (over her strenuous objections) where the homestead exemption was large enough that we could keep our home (which was more expensive than we could comfortably afford because it was in the area of the best school for our special needs daughter, a real hot button for my wife); our overreach there meant that we had to sell a year later at a significant profit and move to a different town to a larger house for slightly less money; our overreach there led to selling that house after 14 months at an even larger profit which we used to move back to GA where my wife had wanted to be all along and where we bought an even more expensive house (albeit with a significantly better income) because it was in the school district she selected; once our oldest started college my wife got a job but insisted that what was hers was hers and what was mine was ours; as a result we eventually lost the house in foreclosure, in part because she had announced that would not attempt to meet my very bare bones ultimatum (with the marriage counselor’s blessing) that she stop treating her money as only her money and that she resume sex; our marriage counselor told her straight out that she did not have biblical grounds for divorce but that I did for her long-standing disrespect and sexual refusal (2 years plus at the time); when nothing changed I made plans for a 6 month separation as a last ditch effort to save the marriage (which I then abandoned as the date approached); and she then divorced me, announcing the divorce (and her view of whose fault it was) to the kids before I knew about the divorce and in spite of her repeated promise to me and to our counselors that if if ever got that bad we’d tell the kids together. Though we wer always active in our churches at our mutual insistence, and though I was intentional about our music and entertainment choices (though rarely to her satisfaction, and though I tried to be intentional about teaching my children about God as we went about our days and prayed at all meals and at special times, I did not consistently lead family devotions, this failing as a spiritual leader in the home in my wife’s reckoning.

“I agree with much of the videos message. Why is this video anti-male propaganda? Pastors are right about allot of twenties men not taking responsibility and becoming adults. Any man who lives with his parents at that age is a loser. The black Pastor (and the young Pastor) made the most direct sense.”

and

“Looks like these guys can’t handle the pressure. Sounds like they need to man up.”

I get your point about men not accepting responsibility for themselves & others. But WHY is that? Simple, this is the face of the marriage strike.

The rules & terms of engagement are SO badly tilted in the favour of the opposing team’s favour that it isn’t even remotely a sporting match.

Worse yet, I just affirmed feminism by calling women the opposing team. That is certainly what the feminist movement is all about:
1) competition instead of cooperation.
2) contrast instead of complement.

Pastor Driscoll goes off on the men in his congregation with the sound and fury of a lion, but in reality he is full of the sound & fury of the ‘Idiot’ that Shakespeare wrote of in Macbeth.
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying NOTHING.”

The point Dalrock is making is simple:
1) Where is all the righteous indignation for the spectacular failings of WOMEN?
2) Where is the ‘women up!’ rhetoric to shame women for their TOTAL abdication of THEIR role?

I saw the movie ‘Courageous’ in theatres 2 years ago. I walked out of that movie feeling the effects of this ‘man up’ rhetoric.

I’d been duped! Like a common fool I’d swallowed the bait that if I just ‘manned up’ I would have my masculinity affirmed in this incredibly feminized world.

‘Manning Up!’ is the worst advice being given to the current generation of men, young & old alike.

I would rather see it morph into a better catch phrase of:
“I’ll take responsibility for me, but not for thee!”

Women need to feel the FULL effects of their failings, and carry the weight of that ALONE.

How else are we ever going to get back to a functioning system if men keep propping up the existing failed dynamic, whose architect was feminism?

And the user exclaimed with a snarl and a taunt,
“It’s just what I asked for, but not what I want!”

The above line is from “The Programmer’s Night Before Christmas,” Anyone that has ever done any commercial programming understands working from a set of specifications and producing a piece of software that exactly matches the specifications, only to have the user (the person for who you are producing the software) say “it meets the specs, but it’s not what I wanted.”

It struck me that this same phenomenon is in play in the churchian demand for men to “man up and marry those s**ts.” No woman really wants (or respects) a man whose character is so weak that he allows himself to be pushed and manipulated into marrying a s**t. In what must be one of life’s great ironies, a man that compromises and lowers his standards to the point that he is willing to marry her (a s**t), becomes–in her eyes-beneath her; not good enough for her; not enough of a man for her.

And the woman exclaimed with a snarl and a taunt,
“You did just as I asked, but now you’re not what I want!”

Thank you for posting the video. I’d heard of Mark Driscoll through this site, but never bothered to listen to his message before.

The fact that he is selling a service should ring alarm bells from the very beginning. Serious seminars, such as the Alpha Course, do not require payment. The organizers of “Stepping Up” clearly have a conflict of interests – they are not offering their services for the glory of God or because of the goodness of their hearts.

Yes, it is a carefully crafted advertisement, designed to appeal to a primary and secondary target audience.

The wife in the video is disgusting; but to soften the message, she says only that she will be moving to the trailer park – not that her lawyer will then come to extract hubby from the family home and send HIM to the trailer park. Even the softened message is revolting – her moving to the trailer park could not possibly help with the son’s behavior, and is not intended to do so: it is purely “do what I want or else”.

When one of the speakers says that the “man-boys” are having sex, this statement is designed to appeal to young women, by making them think that the “Step Up” message is addressed to the men they are having sex with.

We know otherwise: 75% of the women are having sex with 20% of the men, and therefore at least 55% of the women will be disappointed that they never get to marry their alpha male “partner”.

One point of disagreement – when Dennis Rainey says “there is a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of [his] neck to stand up”, I don’t think he means that he objects to these passages: I think he means merely that these passages shock him. Because we are all miserable sinners, I do not think it is surprising that we should find parts of the Bible shocking. The parts of the message that confront sin are bound to be shocking and unpopular.

However, the main lesson from this sorry tale must be: never pay for spiritual advice.

Christian men are the biggest manginas and they deserve to get abused by their wives. If the men had any dignity or self respect, they would leave that bogus religion and convert to a REAL MAN’s RELIGION like ISLAM!!!!!

One point of disagreement – when Dennis Rainey says “there is a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of [his] neck to stand up”, I don’t think he means that he objects to these passages: I think he means merely that these passages shock him. Because we are all miserable sinners,

No.
He says it because he knows women will be offended. he doesnt object to the content, he objects because his wife objects, the women of the church object, and then he feels compelled to apologize for the very word of God

When the wife said “I can move.”, the husband should have helped her pack. Odds are his son helps out with the bills more than her, and he probably doesn’t constantly give that guy crap like his wife does.

i don’t know if you noticed, but it was men who were and men who created
Zeus, Moses, Jesus, David, Odysseus, Achilles

Hey Da GBFM

I love your stuff – one thing I could never figure out is precisely what your beliefs were – am I to gather from the above that you are an atheist, albeit one who has a high regard for the wisdom of the Scriptures?

Christian men are the biggest manginas and they deserve to get abused by their wives. If the men had any dignity or self respect, they would leave that bogus religion and convert to a REAL MAN’s RELIGION like ISLAM!!!!!

If you looked at the godly men of the past, there was no shortage of masculinity, believe me.

Plus in battle they kicked the Muslim’s asses so many times. Modern Christians/Churchians may often be effeminate losers, but do not conflate them with the real Christians (these mostly lived in the past and not today)- who are both peaceful, merciful folk and also simultaneously able to kick ass like on one else when the situation called for it.

“{women are saying}… I can make babies, but I don’t want to get married to a baby, so they just choose to remain single.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHA. That guy has to take blue-pill-of-the-year award, hands down. That viewpoint is so bass-ackwards I don’t know where to begin. Men are the immature ones? Really?

BTW, as a serious aside. I am not religious. I haven’t been a believer in anything for over a decade now. However, I fully recognize and respect the good that comes from faith existing in human beings on this earth. I don’t particularly like organized religion, but I tolerate it so long as it does not try to influence politics or economics. That being said, I find serious reasons for concern that organized religions are under direct sociological attack by marxists with this feminist thought infiltration. There is no better way to destroy a structure of faith than to convince the women to revolt, and that seems to be exactly what is happening.

And yes, I cannot believe I am actually thinking such things, but there you go.

Growing up, I got a lot of “talkings-to” usually from my Mom, but sometimes from my Dad – whom I hated to be “talked-to” by – why? Because he would explain why I shouldn’t do something, whereas my Mom would just tell me “don’t do that”. Fine – I’ll file away Mom’s advice to the “don’t do that when you can be seen” file, but my Dad’s always made sense… I could ignore it, but knowing the “why” made it so that I couldn’t ignore it – at least if the possible outcome was unacceptable. Of course sometime my Mom also made sense, “Don’t run with the scissors, they could go right through you.” Hmmmm… I run a lot, I fall alot… Look at scissors – compare to body. Yep. she’s right on that one… I won’t run with these suckers… So I listen – but usually I choose to ignore such “advice”…

So when I’m told, “Do that” or “this” – I want to know what is in it “for me”, or how is it bad, “for me”. All of these types of videos do is show me, there is nothing in it for me. It doesn’t provide any value to me.

Now, this video really doesn’t apply to me since I am very successful no matter how you look at it. Too successful for Obama’s America, and I’m working to fix that by ensuring that most of my income comes from elsewhere, and most of the people working for me, are not in the US. My US based companies are tax shelters, and ways to funnel money overseas – nothing else. Yes, I know all about how that “hurts” others, and such, but it doesn’t pass the “what’s in it for me” test… There is nothing in it for me – so I use what is useful, and minimize the damage. Sure, that means people get put out of work, and once I cared – my Mom’s influence – but now the Government takes so much “for others who aren’t as successful” that I’m tapped out – hell, they live better than I did when struggling to succeed – so why should I care about them at all? And really, I grew up in a city, so I saw all of the scammers that used those programs – the women that didn’t work and lived better than we did. So if I can starve them of money – that is the BEST thing I can do for those people.

So I see the same when it comes to women – I treat them like they want to be treated. I must since they keep coming back – even though guys like in the video would vilify me… The women don’t. They call… They want to come over to see me. So this video doesn’t provide anything of value. I would advise men, especially young men, to do what they want, and what gives the pleasure. You only go around once in life – don’t listen to others, they know nothing about you, and want something from you. Always ask, “WHY”? Usually, you’ll see they benefit in some way – so you can figure out how to “value” their advice… Don’t listen to me because I say something, “Ask, what’s in it for him?” Answer – not a lot, but it doesn’t take anything from me either – which is why I’m telling you this. If it did take something from me – I wouldn’t tell you…

And of course, I hide my identity since Obama’s boys – the IRS are always sniffing around looking for ways to steal everything you have…. Which is why, most of my wealth is now – elsewhere… :) I’ll be here for another 10 years of so, then retire and renounce my citizenship – I know when to leave a sinking ship, and the USS America ran aground long ago – that’s why it hasn’t sunk yet – but it also hasn’t moved either… For about the last 12+ years, we’ve gone no where. Just sitting here, and it’s rusting, and will collapse. Do I care? Abstractly yes – but only abstractly… This is no longer “My Country” – it belongs to the deadbeats – so they can have it…